Team Tournament - Strange Counting?

On the StreetSoccer Team Tournament result page, it shows both 'Polska' and 'MonStars' having 1 point each.

Now I don't mind if the MonStars get this point (being a member of them and all), but for me 31:9 result is not a tie?

Can anyone explain this to my limited understanding?

I believe that LG's source code works something like that:

  if (you get ALL the points)

    result = victory

  else

  {

    if (you get 0 points)

      result = defeat;

    else

      result = tie

  }

Or something in that line. So, if a similar code was used, it's quite visible why 31:9 was calculated as a tie (which it's certainly NOT the case). Additionally (and that's the actual evidence on which I formulated my hypothesis), that's why we can't get a proper win-loss-tie info on StreetSoccer.

Strange.

We will "soon" see in the Ewn team tournament if

a similar phenomenon happens there.

Or may it have it to do with the fact that team Polska

has two players only?

Ingo.

Seems like I was right and every game will be 1:1...

This might actually be a good thing: for team tournaments it makes much more sense to calculate the standing for total game points (which I suppose will be the tie-breaker here) than through team points. To give an example: suppose there where only 3 teams (A, B and C) and that the results were A 19 x 21 B, B 21 x 19 and C 15 x 25 A. With team points that would mean B champion with 4 points, A second, with 2 and C third with 0. With total game points that would mean A first with 44 points, B second with 42 and C again third 34, which is obviously the right way.

BTW, chess used to have game points but recently that sadly changed.

If this would be the case, then you don't need to give points at all: each of the N teams will end up with N-1 'participation' points, because it participated in N-1 games and got 1 points each time. Useless.

I rather agree with the calculation/code error theory - somehow, StreetSoccer has not been made to recognize that there are 5 points per game, so the code assumes whoever has 0 points lost and anything else is tied.

As expected, the same phenomena appeared in EWN.

sorry if I am off-topic. What do you mean, Chess has not game points? In team tournaments?

I think that a team championship without importance of

team scores does not make sense. Four wins (in ewn team

championship) with 10:6 each is clearly better than

a single 16:0-win plus three 8:8-draws, although they

have the same number of match wins.

It is in the nature of a team that scores are not built like

in case of "independent" single players. For instance, from

time to time I also have a look in the game standings of my

team partner to see in which games I invest most of my energy.

(Such thing is also normal in German chess Bundesliga: players

are allowed - during their games - to have look at the boards

of their partners - and to make, dependent on what they see,

decisions for risky or for safe play.)

Ingo.

That's way usually team score is the tie-breaker for team competitions. In your example, those two teams would indeed have the same number of points (40), but the first would have a better tie-breaker (8 points for 4 wins against 5 for the other team).

If, however, second team, instead of being equal in all three other team matches, would only tie two and win one 9:7, then it would be better.

@Duke of Prunes - In most chess team tournaments, historically, game points was used to build the standings. That means if in a 6 all-play-all team competition, team A won 5 matches 2,5:1,5 each and team B lost 1,5:2,5, tied with C and won 4:0 his remaining matches, B would be declared champion. Now (for the last 4 or so years) the most important chess team championships, A would be declared champion. But gamepoints would be the tie-breaker, so if C had won all his 3 remain matches 3,5:0,5, than although both B and C would have 7 team points (3 victories and 1 draw), B would be second on the account of having better game points (15,5 against 14) than C.

@Ingo - obviously I do now how chess team competitions work, believe me.

Paradoxically enough, team scores do NOT highlight the interdependence of a team. Modifying my example to DoP, suppose B would also beat C 4:0. To make the exemple even more didactic, suppose that in AxB the first three boards were draws and A won the fourth board. If game points are used B is better. If team points are used A is better. But that would be decide the whole championship in a single - and somewhat random - game (the fourth board in this example). Hell will freeze before you can convince 35% of top chess players that A was better than B.

@MRFvT That's certainly not my experience of chess team tournaments. The Scholastic tournaments I participated in in the 1970s did not work that way. The US Amateur Team Championships, which is by far the largest team tournament in the US doesn't work that way. I know the Olympiad used to, and I assumed it still did, but I think that's the exception. Your way has the team vs. team aspect reduced to a scheduling convenience. IMO, that's not what a team tournament is about.

Already for several years, Chess Olympiads have as first rule

the team points:

2.5-1.5, 3-1, 3.5-0.5, 4-0 all give 2 points for the winning team,

2-2 gives one team point.

Ingo.

I must confess I do not know much about US chess. But that was the way in Olympiads, World Team Championships (Open, Women and age groups) and still is in most European leagues.

Congratulations to the 2-player Polska team

for winning the first Championchips with

100 % score!

Ingo.